PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NS Safety improvements?
View Single Post
Old 28th Sep 2013, 13:55
  #33 (permalink)  
HeliComparator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,090
Received 39 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by cyclic
HC, as per usual, if it isn't your way, it is the highway. You come out with some great stuff but it is always qualified with "not at my perfect company". This comes across as distinctly arrogant, which I know isn't the message you are trying to convey. I don't wish this to be a company v company issue which is why we have all three companies working together - I don't have shares in any of them! Perhaps we can really learn from each other this time or perhaps some don't think there is anything they can be taught about NS ops.

You didn't answer with the amount of bow decks you have flown at night recently. I would wager, that most of the night bow decks flown on the NS at the moment are done by one company - just the way the cookie crumbled. That gives some of us a little more recent background to what really is happening out on the street.
Well firstly I don't know where you are getting any company vs company or Bristow elitism from. Can you show me where on this thread I have done that, or withdraw your comment?

Secondly, I retired 1st August so I don't work for any company (mea culpa for habitually saying "we" recently when I should have said "they".

Thirdly I am a bad example because as a chief trainer I have done little line flying in the past 5 yrs or so. Year before last I think I did 80 hrs! However I have done enough night bow decks in the past to know that they are challenging.

Yes, typically one of the pilots can be unsighted and trust has to be put in the other. However it is also "normal" for one pilot to be unsighted to any deck during part of the approach, although some structure usually remains in sight to give a clue.

So this is reasonable hazard to consider, however it could be controlled for example by requiring an elevated minimum experience for p2.

Then there is the issue of heave rate and power margin. I think that heave rate is a better measure than absolute heave since it directly relates to power margin. But we fail to "do it properly" by considering what the helicopter's actual power margin is for the current conditions and mass. There is a one size fits all figure for allowable heave rate which I suspect was derived without too much science. Really we should be checking the mass and performance to ensure we can match the heave rate with a good deal of safety margin, say 100% extra. By not doing so we are just being lazy and complacent.

Last edited by HeliComparator; 28th Sep 2013 at 13:55.
HeliComparator is offline